﻿498 
  PROCEEDINGS 
  OF 
  THE 
  NATIONAL 
  MUSEUM 
  vol. 
  los 
  

  

  Specimens 
  and 
  types 
  at 
  the 
  Museum 
  of 
  Comparative 
  Zoology, 
  Harvard 
  

   University, 
  were 
  also 
  examined. 
  One 
  specimen 
  (Upeneus 
  subvittatus 
  

   Snyder, 
  1907, 
  p. 
  101) 
  was 
  loaned 
  from 
  the 
  Natural 
  History 
  Museum, 
  

   Stanford 
  University, 
  thi-ough 
  the 
  courtesy 
  of 
  Dr. 
  George 
  S. 
  Myers. 
  

   The 
  type 
  of 
  Mullus 
  duhius 
  Temminck 
  and 
  Schlegel 
  (1843, 
  p. 
  30) 
  was 
  

   reexamined 
  for 
  the 
  author 
  by 
  Dr. 
  M. 
  Boeseman, 
  Rijksmuseum 
  van 
  

   Natuurlijke 
  Historic, 
  Leiden, 
  Netherlands. 
  

  

  I 
  am 
  also 
  indebted 
  to 
  William 
  C. 
  Schroeder 
  for 
  making 
  laboratory 
  

   facilities 
  available 
  at 
  the 
  Museum 
  of 
  Comparative 
  Zoology, 
  Harvard 
  

   University, 
  and 
  to 
  Dr. 
  Robert 
  R. 
  Harry, 
  Academy 
  of 
  Natural 
  Sciences, 
  

   Philadelphia, 
  for 
  loan 
  of 
  the 
  holotype 
  of 
  Upeneus 
  phillipsi 
  Fowler. 
  

   The 
  photogi'aphs 
  were 
  taken 
  by 
  personnel 
  of 
  the 
  Smithsonian 
  Insti- 
  

   tution's 
  photographic 
  laboratory. 
  

  

  The 
  synonomy 
  listed 
  in 
  the 
  descriptive 
  accounts 
  of 
  each 
  species 
  is 
  

   incomplete. 
  Many 
  faunal 
  studies 
  were 
  largely 
  ignored 
  except 
  in 
  cases 
  

   where 
  adequate 
  descriptions 
  or 
  illustrations 
  were 
  presented, 
  or 
  where 
  

   the 
  collections 
  involved 
  were 
  available 
  for 
  reexamuiation. 
  The 
  geo- 
  

   graphical 
  distribution 
  given 
  for 
  each 
  species 
  was 
  constructed 
  from 
  the 
  

   distributions 
  of 
  examined 
  specimens 
  and 
  from 
  the 
  literature 
  where 
  

   the 
  descriptions 
  or 
  illustrations 
  were 
  suflSciently 
  thorough 
  and 
  accurate 
  

   to 
  enable 
  me 
  to 
  identify 
  the 
  species 
  with 
  assm-ance. 
  

  

  All 
  measurements 
  of 
  the 
  length 
  of 
  a 
  fish 
  refer 
  to 
  the 
  standard 
  length, 
  

   unless 
  stated 
  otherwise. 
  The 
  method 
  of 
  counting 
  fin 
  rays, 
  gillrakers, 
  

   and 
  scales 
  of 
  the 
  body 
  is 
  similar 
  to 
  that 
  given 
  by 
  Lachner 
  (1951, 
  p. 
  

   581). 
  In 
  the 
  first 
  paragraph 
  under 
  "Description" 
  of 
  each 
  species 
  the 
  

   count 
  for 
  each 
  character 
  is 
  recorded 
  as 
  follows: 
  the 
  mean: 
  range 
  

   (number 
  of 
  specimens) 
  ; 
  for 
  example, 
  pectoral 
  rays 
  16.1: 
  15 
  to 
  17 
  (68). 
  

   This 
  method 
  of 
  recording 
  does 
  not 
  apply 
  for 
  the 
  new 
  species. 
  For 
  

   these, 
  separate 
  methods 
  are 
  given 
  in 
  the 
  description 
  of 
  each 
  species. 
  

   Dark 
  spots 
  at 
  the 
  tips 
  of 
  the 
  lobes 
  of 
  the 
  caudal 
  fin, 
  distinct 
  from 
  

   black 
  margins, 
  were 
  counted 
  as 
  bars 
  in 
  the 
  tabulated 
  data, 
  but 
  the 
  

   small 
  spots 
  or 
  blotches 
  near 
  the 
  midbase 
  of 
  the 
  caudal 
  fin 
  were 
  

   omitted. 
  

  

  Diagnostic 
  characters 
  

  

  Several 
  of 
  the 
  important 
  diagnostic 
  characters 
  useful 
  in 
  distinguish- 
  

   ing 
  the 
  species 
  have 
  been 
  misinterpreted 
  by 
  various 
  authors 
  or 
  were 
  

   entirely 
  overlooked. 
  It 
  is 
  necessary, 
  therefore, 
  to 
  discuss 
  the 
  critical 
  

   characters 
  in 
  the 
  approximate 
  sequence 
  of 
  their 
  importance 
  in 
  the 
  

   identification 
  of 
  the 
  species. 
  These 
  characters 
  are 
  of 
  taxonomic 
  value 
  

   because 
  of 
  their 
  low 
  variability 
  and 
  the 
  accuracy 
  by 
  which 
  they 
  can 
  

   be 
  measured. 
  The 
  sequence 
  in 
  which 
  they 
  are 
  discussed 
  is 
  not 
  

   intended 
  to 
  portray 
  phylogenetic 
  relationships 
  although 
  this 
  may 
  

   partially 
  exist. 
  

  

  